WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1726/97 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. Southport sea wall
Date: 1997-05-23
Institutions: CORBETT, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, association, complaint to the Commission, dissemination of information, ecology movement, engineering structure, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, project evaluation

C 21/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22. 1. 98

(98/C 21/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/97

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(23 May 1997)

Subject: Electricity Grid Feed Act

The  letter  of  26  October  1996  from  Commissioner  Van  Miert  to  Germany(cid:146)s  Federal  Minister  for  Economic
Affairs, Rexrodt, states that, in the field of wind power production, the Commission was assuming that (cid:145)in 1990
there had been a capacity of 20 MW and that the additional cost to all electricity supply companies in Germany
had been between DM 500 000 and 1 million per annum(cid:146). If one accepts these figures, the additional costs arising
from wind power are, at most, DM 0.0125-0.025/kWh. This calculation accords with German case law dealing
with cartels and information provided by renewable energy associations. At the same time, however, this figure
completely contradicts the alleged additional costs of up to DM 900 million in 2005 which have been asserted by
the German energy industry and accepted by the Commission without verification (with an estimated installed
wind power capacity of 4000 MW). If one carries out the calculation in the same way as the Commission, the
additional costs in 2005 could not exceed DM 100-200 million for all German energy suppliers.

The  studies  of  trends  in  the  costs  of  wind  power  published  in  Germany  in  early  1997  show  that  the
1.
Electricity Grid Feed Act clearly does not result in excessive subsidies being paid. These studies demonstrate that
only at the most favourable coastal sites do the rates of subsidy currently granted permit the facilities to operate
economically. This calculation does not even take account of the impact of possible future damage to facilities
and repair work. Is Directorate-General IV aware of these studies, and will it qualify its statements of October
1996 in the light of this new information?

2.
Is the Competition Commissioner aware that his German Director-General, Alexander Schaub, is a member
of  the  same  party  as  Minister  for  Economic  Affairs  Rexrodt,  to  whom  the  letter  of  26  October  1996  was
addressed? Is there not a serious conflict of interest in this case, particularly in view of the fact that Mr Schaub
drafted an internal note from Directorate-General IV on the Electricity Grid Feed Act, quite blatantly accepting
without  verification  the  position  of  PreussenElektra,  which  had  complained,  and  not  even  mentioning  the
material submitted by the renewable energy associations?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 1997)

Several  studies  on  the  development  of  costs  for  production  of  wind  energy  in  Germany  have  been
1.
submitted  to  the  Commission  in  1997  and  are  being  examined.  As  far  as  their  results  may  influence  the
evaluation of the (cid:145)Stromeinspeisungsgesetz(cid:146) under state aid law, the Commission will take them into account in
its decision how to proceed in this matter.

The Commission is obliged to examine complaints from enterprises and individuals about the infringement
2.
of competition rules of the Community. In complying with this obligation, the Commission regularly asks the
government of the Member State concerned to comment the facts underlying the complaint. This was the purpose
of the letter sent by the Commission to the minister of Economics.

(98/C 21/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/97

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 May 1997)

Subject: Southport sea wall

Can the Commission confirm that it verified that the UK complied with the provisions of Directive 92/43 (1)
1.
(Habitats Directive) and Directive 85/337 (2) (Environmental Impact Assessment) in authorizing this project?

In  doing  so,  was  it  satisfied  that  the  alternative  of  (cid:145)natural  sea  defences(cid:146)  (i.e.  allowing  embryonic  sand

2.
dunes to develop) was given sufficient consideration?